Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    BUT - in defense of these forums, it is a much more sensible place than it was a year and a half ago when I joined. People are much more open to eating carbohydrate. When I joined, <50g/carbs a day were the norm. Now, we've moderated to around 100g it seems. 100-150g is probably most sensible for people with desk jobs since it allows a balanced diet without excessive blood glucose. Heavy lifters, please feel free to eat a lot more.
    I was low carb until recently and this article in addition to this forum and The Perfect Health Diet made me realize carbs are important and I do need to watch my portions. I started to worry about what I was doing to my health being low or vlc and feel much better upping the carbs.

    Originally posted by primalrob View Post
    great article. though, i do think that some people can get a little obsessive over counting. not that that leads to anything bad like orthorexia...i just think that gets in the way of enjoying food (maybe that's a good thing for fat loss if the food reward theories are correct).

    i also liked this:

    even though macronutrient content may not matter, this shows that it does a little bit. protein is a big part of decreasing hunger, so someone will ultimately eat fewer calories. i feel like people are afraid of protein though...maybe even more than fat, or because of fat...so they turn to things that make them want to keep eating more.
    I liked it too... protein and enough saturated fat (but not too much) is important for fat loss. I've done weight watchers many times and gained it all back. Maybe if I'd had enough protein and saturated fat I would have kept it off.

    Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
    The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.
    Very true. Someone said it's still a choice. If you think your mind is stronger than your body you're wrong.

    Originally posted by Marnee View Post
    The problem isn't calories in the sense that this is shorthand for the Law of Conservation of Energy. The problem is with the bomb calorimeter model of human metabolism. Not every metabolic process is oxidative and no oxidative process burns molecules down to ash. But this is what happens in a bomb calorimeter.

    Consider that the heat output of incinerating protein is 7 Cals / gram. But humans do not burn protein directly. We first convert it to amino acids which are then converted to glucose which then is used to produce ATP which is used as energy in mitochondria.

    Also consider that although the ratio of heat output of glucose to fat is 9:4 Cals/gram, fat produces many times more ATP than glucose (see Wikipedia entry on ATP). Many times. The ratio of 9:4 is a little more than 2. Is this "many times" more? I dunno for sure but I highly doubt it.

    Fat is used for far more processes than energy, but heat output/ oxidation is all that is assessed. Why? I think this is a very bad proxy.

    These are the most obviously glaring problems with the bomb calorimeter model, aka "calories count."

    As far as I can tell there is not a 1:1 relationship between the heat output of a bomb calorimeter and human metabolic rate.

    Until this is resolved, approximating your "Calorie needs" and then counting them in your food is useless as anything other than a (kinda bad) proxy for quantifying and understanding how much one eats.

    I think mindfulness from simply logging your food, and some careful, systematic restriction, is far more useful.
    +1

    Originally posted by gopintos View Post
    Ok, thought of some gnawing questions. I am sure already answered in other threads but I havent really found my answers.

    But if CICO is the thing, what is everyone's take on the following:

    Does it matter when you consume them? Some say 1) Eat breakfast first thing. Jump start your metabolism. Some say 2) Eat smaller more frequently, keep your metabolism revved. Some say 3)Dont eat often, don't snack. But what difference does it make at the end of the day so long as you have a deficit?

    Also - dont go too low on calories. You go into starvation mode? wth is that anyways? Seems like the tooth fairy to me. Good idea on paper but for what purpose, I mean seems to me like one of 3 things. 1. Eat enough to just maintain 2. Eat too much and store the excess 3. Dont eat enough and you lose by pulling from the reserves. If you arent eating enough, then the body is suppose to live on it's reserve right? It makes no sense to me that the body would store fat for a rainy day, but then go into starvation mode and not use it when it is starts to rain. Nothing scientific, just my line of thinking. So it seems to me like, going too low is a non-issue. Now, I get that you arent getting enough nutrients but if you supplement, then if weight loss is the goal, it should be okay until you reach maintenance, shouldnt it? Yet one of the first things ppl say when you plateau is you are probably not eating enough.

    Or they say you should exercise more. But then ppl say it is mostly about nutrition, not about exercise. But if the activity creates a bigger deficit, seems like it should have a direct impact. Like on BL and they exercise 8 hours a day or whatever. It is just when I exercise more, I get more hungry so it seems counterproductive for weight loss. I do understand there are many other benefits but I am just talking about the calories thing.

    So eating too few brings me to restricted calories vs. fasting. Some say dont restrict too low, but fasting is okay. Does fasting then really work for weight loss? I mean if at the end of the day you consume 1200 calories, does the body care whether you eat 100 calories 12 times a day, or one big 1200 meal. Does it care if you eat every other day and have 2400 calories when the window opens? Does it care if you eat before midnight, after midnight?

    And it seems to me like if it is CICO, why do we have/need a carb curve? Why do we care about macros at all. I get that some macros are more satiating than others, so choose wisely, make it count. I use to drink a gallon of sweet tea a day, 300 grams of sugar. 1000 calories if I figured correctly. If I only drank sweet tea along with my supplements, would I lose weight yes, because it was 1000 calories thus creating a deficit, or no because it was 300 grams of carbs?

    CICO is confusing. Seems like it should be so simple. I guess I should read the whole article. Maybe it is outlined there.
    All good questions.

    Originally posted by jammies View Post
    Once again, I'll point out that humans have very little conscious control over their caloric intake in the long term. Caloric restriction in the long term has about a 98% failure rate for weight loss, with a large number of people actually gaining more weight back then they lost.

    So suggesting caloric restriction as a method for weight loss is not supported in the real world. People would lose weight if they absorbed less of their food - why not just ask them to do that? It's pretty much the same thing.

    Personally, I have found that satiety is the key to controlling caloric intake naturally. I think this idea is becoming more supported by data and will continue to gain support in the coming years.
    +1,000
    Last edited by healthy11; 07-26-2012, 05:50 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      I actually worry about the future- and getting to a point where I can only have 800 or 900 calories a day. It's depressing. I've stalled and have maintained very well on about 1400 calories a day plus 3x a week bodyweight and other random exercise. However, that was the level I was losing at. I'd hate to have to go to 1200 to maintain and then 1000.... and so on. With about 30 lbs. to lose, it's a depressing thought.
      It is very depressing how little a woman needs to eat and how little exercise lifts the limit (and yes, I am talking about exercise at the brink of over-reaching). I was away on vacations, and had reacted badly to local water abroad. For about 5 days I had bad case of you know what, and by day 3, I could not even drink liquids. Until I get filled up on 3 super-strong stomach medications cocktail. 5 days of food coming through me until I gave up on eating and drinking all together, and that's when I got flat stomach that eluded me for the last 2 or so years of vigorously trying. I was only walking the city for about 5-6 hours a day at a tourist's pace. So, basically, I should really eat every 3 days or so, and I will be at my best....

      Even more depressing being sick was the only time I did not experience hunger. As soon as medication kicked in, I was voraciously hungry and came home only about 1 lb less than when I left. For the past few years after losing pregnancy weight, hunger has been my constant companion. From horrid carb hunger, many of us experienced to that nagging hunger you get when you eat proper macro ratio for your make-up. I lost my ability to fast in the past few month, I just can't do it.

      A 800-1000 cals range is barely enough to get sufficient proteins in, with little room for fat and carbs.

      Depressing, depressing and more depressing.
      Last edited by Leida; 07-26-2012, 06:04 AM.
      My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
      When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by jimhensen View Post
        Fat people aren't lazy and gluttonous just like alcoholics don't lack self control. There are reasons why some people can stop after a few drinks and others can't stop until they are far too drunk for their own good...and its not self control, it has to do with their brain chemistry. And the same applies for someone that can eat just a couple cookies and not think twice about as opposed to someone that says "I am just going to have a couple cookies" and then eats the whole box. There is a LOT more to it than just being lazy and gluttonous...obestity, in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how someone's brain works and how it drives them to eat.
        Maybe there's some hope for this troll!
        The Champagne of Beards

        Comment


        • #79
          We can measure calories in, but we can't really measure calories out, because metabolism is dynamic and can change minut-by-minute. This leads people to (incorrectly) assume that since calories out can't be measured or tracked, then it must not exist.

          If you want to see an example of your metabolism change, try eating a few spoons of sugar or some fruit. Very shortly afterward, your pulse will likely speed up in reaction to the sugar. This is an indication of increased metabolism. Our bodies are CONSTANTLY adjusting to the amounts and types of food we give it. Eat very low carb or calorie restrict for a few days or more, and your body will slow down metabolism. This may mean that your temperature slightly decreases, your pulse slows down a bit, or any number of unseen internal processes are put on hold.

          This is why those suggestions to 'cut 100 calories a day and lose 10lbs per year' don't work; aside from the fact that calorie intake AND activity levels change every day, the body is very good at lowering it's daily calorie requirement when it senses chronic undereating. This is the reasoning behind calorie cycling; a few days of lower calorie eating to burn off some fat, then a day of normal or higher calories to prevent metabolism from lowering in response.

          None of this means that CICO don't matter, but it does mean that it's much, much more complex than just calorie reduction. Otherwise, there would never have been a need for Lyle McDonald and a bunch of other people to promote calorie cycling.

          I've done 750 calories a day through obsessive, meticulous tracking to the gram of everything that went in my mouth (which means I've refused to taste things I was cooking, for fear of adding one unaccounted mouthful of food to my calorie count). It's miserable, absolutely miserable, and I can understand why people want to believe that there is a better way.

          Comment


          • #80
            This thread must of spawned from an earlier discussion choco and I had about a similar topic. I didnt read the article completely because lets face it, there is TONS of opposing views on the interner that are sourced. I will post my opinion on this.

            Ive been powerlifting for about 6 years, at an assortment of body weights. When i decided to clean my act up, AKA primal, i had been eating whatever i want, ALOT of processed carbs and was still eating quite a bit of fat. I was around 252 at the time and probably 22-25% body fat. I changed my diet to "carb backloading" by John Kiefer which is basically fasting breakfast (coffee with coconut oil) having less then 30g carbs preworkout, and PWO is as many high glycemic carbs you can cram down your throat until bed. Needless to say ive slightly dialed the carbs down and the quality has gone up, but i'm pretty positive my calories are not much less or even the same as when i was 252. I'm now 226 and i'm attempting to switch to 100% primal and slowly leaving the backloading thing because its getting boring.

            This debate will go on forever but i still have a little gut feeling certain types of marco manipulation can have a pretty substaintial effect on FAT loss.

            FYI - John Kiefer is a scientist and not a joe blow personal trainer that has a blog.

            Comment


            • #81
              "Also consider that although the ratio of heat output of glucose to fat is 9:4 Cals/gram, fat produces many times more ATP than glucose (see Wikipedia entry on ATP). Many times. The ratio of 9:4 is a little more than 2. Is this "many times" more? I dunno for sure but I highly doubt it."
              this is a great perspective, which types of food best help cell/mitocondrial function? That is the key to long term healthy body weight. No short term study of calories and weight loss comparisons is going to truly gauge this in any useful fashion.

              Comment


              • #82
                A 800-1000 cals range is barely enough to get sufficient proteins in, with little room for fat and carbs.
                Yeah, lol, we are pros at controlling hunger... I kind of like the feeling of being a little hungry. But it is the nutritional stuff I worry about. I want fruit for a reason other than being "out of control" or a "sugar addict". I don't want a candy bar or a soda. I think I want the fruit because of the vitamins and minerals.

                I don't know- maybe my solution lies in supplements and reduced calories.

                My other thought is that nightshades are stalling me. I have always gotten heartburn from tomatoes. Back when I was losing it was winter/spring, so no consumption of tomatoes. But the past few months have been tomatoes, eggplant and peppers. But again, le sigh... they are veggies I enjoy. Seriously, must a stew of eggplant and tomato and garlic be yet another thing I "can't have".

                Sorry for the vent- it's just depressing. I just want to eat and enjoy whole foods. I have exactly zero desire to eat processed foods or junk foods. I just want the ability to eat a variety of fruits and vegetables and NOT BE fat.

                http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
                Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by jimhensen View Post
                  And the conclusion seems like BS to me "The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body."
                  I haven't read the whole thread yet, so maybe someone has brought up this point again, but the statement you quoted is entirely valid because of the way calories are measured. The food is placed in a bomb calorimeter and basically burned until only ash remains. The body does not work this way. Different foods will be broken down to various degrees. Kurt Harris's "No such thing as a macronutrient" series of posts explain this very well. Especially concerning carbohydrates For example, cellulose is totally indeigestible but has the same number of calories as starch. Your body cannot assimilate the cellulose at all, but you will nearly completely assimilate the starch. A cup of gasoline has about 2000 calories:

                  Archevore - Archevore Blog - No Such thing as a macronutrient part II - Carbohydrates*(revised)
                  Archevore - Archevore Blog - There is No Such Thing as a Macronutrient Part I -*Fats

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    While I firmly believe that CICO matters, even though it is a complex, mysterious process that we will never be able to understand (at least the CO part, since we can't see or track how our bodies are using energy), there is a huge, glaring issue that is being ignored, though Magnolia hit on it:

                    Women and men lose/gain/store fat very differently. Women are genetically programmed to gain and store fat, men are designed to put on muscle.

                    Of course there are exceptions, to a degree. And of course this doesn't mean that women can't put on ANY muscle, or men can't gain ANY fat. But the fact is, we are designed for different biological purposes, which is a fact that is generally ignored in the diet/fat loss world.

                    If CICO was as neat and easy as some people claim, why would this be? And why would women be ROUTINELY excluded from fat loss scientific research experiments, with the explanantion being that the researchers don't want female hormonal issues bogging down the studies and preventing them from getting some clear-cut results?

                    Why is it that a common story is a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend go primal/paleo or whatever way of eating, and the dude drops weight without really trying while the female counterpart is treading water while meticulously tracking and reducing? (Of course the female is accused of underreporting, because what else could explain the difference?)

                    Again, I'm in no way trying to dismiss CICO, but these glaring omissions of differences between male and female fat loss are infuriating.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                      I wish this worked for me.

                      And yes, 900 calories would suck. How active are you? I think a lot of my issue is that exercise doesn't help anymore. I don't know if I am just efficient or what? I do the weights, but cardio gets me no where.

                      I actually worry about the future- and getting to a point where I can only have 800 or 900 calories a day. It's depressing. I've stalled and have maintained very well on about 1400 calories a day plus 3x a week bodyweight and other random exercise. However, that was the level I was losing at. I'd hate to have to go to 1200 to maintain and then 1000.... and so on. With about 30 lbs. to lose, it's a depressing thought.

                      It sucks to skim out healthy food. Now I'm looking at one fruit a day instead of two. Eliminated chocolate, next up is the coffee. Don't eat excess fat. The only large portions are protein- but the advice is to get what, 1 gram per pound of lean body mass- most days I don't come close. And this is with 30lbs to lose (and it's legit- 184- 155 is my goal... only 5'6 so I have obvious fat to lose). It seems like every 10 lbs I need to cut another 200 calories to lose.

                      Personally, I don't think it's MDA's role to fix me. But damn I wish someone would do more research into people who struggle to lose weight despite following CICO and eating healthy foods. It's like there is zero help. I think people here *get it* and are actually pretty understanding compared to the wonderful MD's.... (skip the fast food and walk..... said to a marathoner vegetarian).

                      It's sucky to work hard at something and not succeed.... and it smarts a bit more when people assume you are not actually trying. I think that attitude turns off a lot of people.

                      You sound pretty down about it but you need to look at where you have come from and keep focusing on where you want to get to. Its a marathon not a sprint.

                      One other trick is working out in a fasted state. I.e. workout in the morning before you eat. It doesn't matter who you are and what gender you are this will burn fat off. I started this process by cycling to work 9miles a day for 18 months. It can be done. you just need to teach your brain that.

                      your body can do anything, it's your brain that tells it you can't. Once you conquer your brain the rest is easy.

                      Keep at it!
                      2010 - 5,11 and 101KG

                      2012 - 5,11 and 77KG

                      Train hard, eat well and love life

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
                        Facing the reality of calories is just too depressing for some people to handle because it means that 300 calorie cream/coffee and slab of butter on your vegetables doesn't come without drawbacks if you're trying to lose or maintain a certain weight. I feel like I've walked into an alternate reality sometimes when I see questions from people who are putting slabs of butter in their coffee and asking why they're not losing weight. I remember a lady telling me she couldn't lose weight despite hardly eating anything, I was wondering whether she was grossly miscalculating her food intake but then she told me she was drinking lots of glucose drinks everyday so she could still have energy while she was dieting.

                        I no longer give people advice like "don't fear the fat" because sometimes they translate it from "don't throw your egg yolks out" and interpret it as "ditch all carbs and slather everything in hundreds of empty fat calories".

                        Originally posted by Hawkward View Post
                        I have no doubt that losing weight / fat requires that you consume fewer calories than you burn. There are no "magic" calories that don't count, or count less. And on a day to day basis, it wouldn't matter what those calories consisted of. However, I would think that over time, what you eat could affect how well your body burns calories. Eat a bad enough diet over time (even without increasing calories) and your body will become malnourished (thyroid or liver problems, for example) and less efficient at burning calories. You'll then gain weight, and it's still because you're burning fewer calories than you're taking in, but the kinds of calories you ate had a lot to do with that by making you less able to burn calories effectively. So in that sense there really are "good calories and bad calories", but not based on whether they're carbs or fats, but rather based on whether in total, they give your body the nutrients it needs.
                        It's true that you'll find it easier and your body will most likely run more efficiently on whole foods but these things play an extremely insignificant role in short term weight loss for and are basically irrelevant for the people making threads asking "Why aren't I losing weight".
                        I agree that the type of food / calories you eat doesn't make a significant difference over the short term. I thought my original post made that clear? But the long term is what really matters. So while it does need to be pointed out that a calorie deficit is required in order to lose weight, it's also important to note that what you eat still matters, and if you consume the wrong kinds of calories and don't get all the right nutrients, you'll make it that much harder to maintain a healthy weight over time. I know that seems obvious, but so many of these "calories do matter" posts try to make their point by saying things like, "hey, you could lose weight living on Twinkies as long as you didn't eat too many of them".
                        LastBottleWines

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by AdamC29 View Post

                          One other trick is working out in a fasted state. I.e. workout in the morning before you eat. It doesn't matter who you are and what gender you are this will burn fat off. I started this process by cycling to work 9miles a day for 18 months. It can be done. you just need to teach your brain that.

                          your body can do anything, it's your brain that tells it you can't. Once you conquer your brain the rest is easy.
                          I'm guessing you're a male. Even without the clue 'Adam' in your name, this is a very typical response that men give, and it's advice that typically DOES work great for MEN, not so much for women.

                          I did this for months - IFed (often fasting for 20-24 hour periods, with 8/16 being my standard) and routinely lifted HEAVY in a fasted state, pushing myself in ways that my husband admitted he could never do. Did I lose fat? Nope. Gained a little muscle, can now do multiple reps of 220lbs on the leg press, but that's all it got me.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by primal pete View Post
                            What exactly are you arguing about here then? That's exactly what the point of the OP is - that for one reason or another, stalled weight loss is ultimately a result of no calorie deficit. Yes, it is entirely possible that someone might have a legitimate hormonal issue that causes their energy levels to be terrible, hence they don't burn a lot of calories on a daily basis. However, for 99% of people that is NOT THE CASE. That's what the point of the thread is - that for most of us who want to make a change and lose the weight, it's just a simple matter of diligence, will power, and perhaps dealing with the slight discomfort of a calorie deficit.
                            That's basically my stance, here. Calories in/calories out is perfect. What is flawed is the method of calculating one's calories because you may have a rare condition that causes your metabolic rate to be extremely slow.

                            For people that "eat 1200 calories on SAD and don't lose weight," 99% of the time they are not properly reporting their food intake. As studies show, this can affect calories by almost 50% - overweight people tend to underreport calories by up to 50% and underweight people tend to overreport. That's a fact.

                            In the rare case with someone with hypothyroidism or some severe metabolic genetic disorder, they may have such a slow metabolism that a calculator that puts them at a TDEE of 1,900 where they're really at 1,200 just for maintenance...well, there's a big issue there. But that's not a flaw in calorie theory. It's a flaw in the method of calculation. Perhaps SAD foods are destroying your thyroid and testosterone and eating primally fixes them - then there is a legitimate example where you can eat more primal foods. However, the calorie theory still holds - your recovered thyroid just increased your metabolic rate, leading to a higher TDEE. Anyone with a somewhat properly functioning metabolism - which is almost all of us - weight loss is going to come out the same if calories and macros are the same regardless of food choices.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
                              I'm guessing you're a male. Even without the clue 'Adam' in your name, this is a very typical response that men give, and it's advice that typically DOES work great for MEN, not so much for women.

                              I did this for months - IFed (often fasting for 20-24 hour periods, with 8/16 being my standard) and routinely lifted HEAVY in a fasted state, pushing myself in ways that my husband admitted he could never do. Did I lose fat? Nope. Gained a little muscle, can now do multiple reps of 220lbs on the leg press, but that's all it got me.
                              Yes I am a male. I do this with my OH who is female and she also has lost significant fat following this routine with me. She has gone from a size 14 to 6/8. We do train with Kettlebells though. It may be coincidence but the fat/weight has literally fallen off using KBs (coupled with a fairly clean diet)
                              2010 - 5,11 and 101KG

                              2012 - 5,11 and 77KG

                              Train hard, eat well and love life

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                                I actually worry about the future- and getting to a point where I can only have 800 or 900 calories a day. It's depressing. I've stalled and have maintained very well on about 1400 calories a day plus 3x a week bodyweight and other random exercise. However, that was the level I was losing at. I'd hate to have to go to 1200 to maintain and then 1000.... and so on. With about 30 lbs. to lose, it's a depressing thought.
                                I hear ya. I was losing more while I was eating more - every two hours, always hungry, going to bed hungry. Then I cut carbs and increased fat, and now I have settled into not as hungry, eating less frequently, eating fewer calories - resulting in losing less weight. Yes I have less to lose now than before but I am only about half way there. Yes I should be happy, I am consistently losing - and I know slow and steady yada yada. But I have only lost 16 pounds in the last 4 months, and I really thought it would be more like twice as much. I realize also body composition & measurements are probably changing and more yada yada, but waist measurement hasnt hardly budged in as many months also, and clothes seem to fit about the same.

                                I also think about maintenance. But figured I would cross that bridge when I come to it, but I have thought about it and what the bottom line calorie is going to look like at that point if I have to keep cutting and cutting.

                                Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                                See above in bold
                                Thank you for your replies. I LOVE PKLOPP's stuff and was hoping he knew what he was talking about.

                                I think the N=1 is where I am at, and it is just hard to tweek. Like how long do you wait to see if it works, the whole definition of insanity thing comes to mind. It is just hard to pinpoint it all. I am losing, and that is the main thing I guess. I just wish someone would wave a wand and say eat this and this, at this time. I am relatively healthy, I think so anyways. No high BP, no high cholesterol, no diabetes, no bad joints, not an unusual high stress (most of the time), sleep could be better but not bad - I think I have started to reverse it in time before my health got out of hand. It just seems like the more I study this and try to learn, the slower my weight loss has become. When I was just blindly watching calories.......... hmmmmmmmm rutroh - when I was just counting calories and letting the macros fall where they may, I seem to have done better. I was also doing about an hour of cardio every day. Carbs were about 175-200 but some of that was things like legumes and a slice of WW bread once in awhile. I was still low fat everything. Being hungry all the time though wasnt working so I thought there had to be a better way and I found PB. And I am certain this is a lifestyle. So I should be happy that I am losing while still enjoying food. I am just wondering since I am relatively healthy if there is something I could be doing to focus just purely on the weight loss aspect. Get the fat off and then settle into the lifestyle. I could be wrong, but seems like those that say don't count your calories, dont worry about eating your fruit, or say what don't you understand about how all this works, are those that are already pretty fit & lean - and I could be all wrong about that. I know some say get healthy first, and weight loss will follow but I think I probably am so I just want the weight off. But I also want things to go back in place so I keep telling myself I am doing it the right way. I just wish it was faster is all. I know wish in one hand ....
                                65lbs gone and counting!!

                                Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X